clm_get_cockpit_weekly_counts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the operation's safety profile. The description adds useful context about the output being a grid scoped to active unloading zones, but it does not clarify how dates are aggregated, what 'active' means, or how the grid handles sites with no counts. This is acceptable but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is front-loaded with the core output and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only aggregation tool, the description plus annotations, full parameter documentation, and output schema are mostly complete. The main missing piece is explicit differentiation from similar count/summary/report tools, but the core invocation details are otherwise well covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents site_id and the inclusive date-range parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the weekly/date-window idea, which is already implied by the schema and tool name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource as a weekly shipment count grid for a site's active unloading zones, which is a specific output concept. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'lists,' but the tool name supplies the action, and the description distinguishes it from the broader shipment-count and cockpit-report siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as clm_count_shipments, clm_get_shipment_summary, or clm_shipment_command_generate_cockpit_daily_report. No exclusions, context triggers, or alternative routing are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.